Re: 3.99.3

From: Perry E. Metzger <perry_at_piermont.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 11:20:02 -0400

My take:

I want to see ONE major scheme effort, not fifteen. I would prefer
that there be a merger of the projects, though I don't particularly
care the mechanism by which it is done. If STk has the superior core,
so be it.

I will note that the current STk license doesn't qualify as open
source even if that was the intent.

.pm

Andrew Dorrell writes:
> Harvey J. Stein wrote:
> >
> > Russ McManus <russell.mcmanus_at_gs.com> writes:
> >
> > > I would like to make a potentially controversial suggestion. Perhaps
> > > guile could become the base for STk. I know some guile/stk work has
> > > gone on already, and that STk and bigloo are getting closer together,
> > > also.
> >
> > Please, please, please don't do this!
> >
> Here here. I have been using extensions to STk which have
> remained
> substantially unchanged since version 2.x. I could not have enjoyed
> such stability with guile. Similarly, little has changes in my STklos
> programs yet the Tk version has moved from 3.6 to 8.0.X. Erik really
> deserves more credit for this.
>
> I would personally like to see guile dropped in favour of STk. BTW I
> found a pointer to STk on the latest Tcl/Tk pages. It points to the
> FAQ, which is a little in need of attention... Perhaps its about time
> one of us with "more better english" lent a hand.
>
>
> --
> Mr Andrew Dorrell *
> Faculty of Engineering /---\ Whoo? *
> University of Technology, Sydney (o o) / *
> AUSTRALIA ( : ) .
> ^ ^
> *
>
Received on Mon Oct 05 1998 - 17:20:49 CEST